Functional Interpretations from Microscopic Analysis

1971 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 361-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. D. Nance
Keyword(s):  
Functional Analysis ◽  
Functional Significance ◽  
Microscopic Analysis ◽  
Projectile Point ◽  
Central California ◽  
Projectile Points ◽  
Late Horizon ◽  
Binocular Microscope

AbstractFor many years, small, serrated, obsidian artifacts characteristic of late central California cultural manifestations (Late Horizon), have been regarded as projectile points (arrow and dart points). A functional analysis of a number of these tools based on examination with a binocular microscope revealed evidence of wear patterns including striations which makes it quite clear that these artifacts were used for other purposes. This brings the projectile point interpretation up for serious questioning, at least for the area under consideration. It is suggested that further investigation of artifact assemblages, using similar methods, will in all likelihood alter many existing ideas regarding the functional significance of many artifact types. It is further pointed out that many times discrepancies exist between ethnographic accounts and other sources of data relative to the functional significance of artifacts.

Introduction to Mistake in Contract Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melvin A. Eisenberg
Keyword(s):  
Functional Analysis ◽  
Functional Significance ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Second Step ◽  
Functional Characteristics ◽  
Turn On ◽  
General Parameter

Chapter 39 concerns the effect of mistake in contract law. Traditionally, contract law has recognized four categories of mistake: misunderstanding, unilateral mistake, mutual mistake, and mistranscription. The names of these categories fail to describe contractual mistakes according to their functional characteristics, and many of the rules that govern these categories turn on elements that are of only limited functional significance, easy to manipulate, or both. The first step in developing a functional analysis of mistake is to analyze contractual mistakes on the basis of their character. The second step is to analyze the rules that should govern each type of mistake based on policy, morality, and experience. This chapter sets out the general parameter of these analyses.

Points in Time: Direct Radiocarbon Dates on Great Basin Projectile Points

2013 ◽  
Vol 78 (3) ◽  
pp. 580-594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey M. Smith ◽  
Pat Barker ◽  
Eugene M. Hattori ◽  
Anan Raymond ◽  
Ted Goebel
Keyword(s):  
Great Basin ◽  
Archaeological Sites ◽  
Projectile Point ◽  
Radiocarbon Dates ◽  
Projectile Points ◽  
Primary Means ◽  
Point Types ◽  
Cross Dating ◽  
Age Estimates

AbstractTypological cross-dating is the primary means by which archaeological sites are placed into chronological frameworks. This approach relies on the assumption that artifacts at undated sites—usually projectile points—are coeval with similar artifacts found at Other, dated sites. While typological cross-dating is necessary in regions dominated by open-air lithic scatters, the approach can be problematic when undated and dated sites are separated by significant distances. Here, we present radiocarbon dates on projectile points with organic hafting material still attached or found within organic storage bags. Our results provide unequivocal ages for various morphological projectile point types at several Great Basin locales and should be useful to researchers seeking local age estimates for those point types, which often involves relying on chronological data from more distant sites. The results also highlight potential issues with uncritically applying typological cross-dating using typologies based on metric attributes, and in two cases, suggest the need to revise the age ranges for certain point styles in the western Great Basin.

scholarly journals J.T.A.H. Special Publication #3 Appendix to Cover Art, The Journal of Texas Archeology and History Volume 4 (2017/2018): A Visual Guide to the Archaic Points Found at the Gault Site (41BL323) with Clovis Points for Comparison; including Projectile Point Fact Sheets

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Williams
Keyword(s):  
Raw Materials ◽  
Archaeological Site ◽  
Western Hemisphere ◽  
Archaeological Research ◽  
Projectile Point ◽  
Non Profit ◽  
Projectile Points ◽  
Central Texas ◽  
Cover Art ◽  
Archaeological Excavations

Archaeological excavations at the Gault Archaeological Site (41BL323) have revealed an almost complete stratigraphic record of the prehistoric occupation of Central Texas (Collins 2002, 2004). Furthermore, ages obtained from Area 15 of the site confirms good stratigraphic agreement between the diagnostic artifacts, cultural horizons, and stratigraphic units (Rodrigues, et al. 2016; Williams, et al. 2018). This includes some of the earliest evidence for a projectile point technology in North America (Williams, et al. 2018). Like many areas in Central Texas, the combination of water, raw materials, and its position along the Balcones Escarpment provided abundant resources essential to survival. The Gault Archaeological Site has a long history. The site takes its name from a previous landowner, Henry Gault, and the first scientific excavations were conducted there in 1929 under the supervision of J. E. Pearce. In 1990, David Olmstead reported a unique find; an Alibates Clovis point sandwiched between two limestone plaques with engraved geometric designs. This led to a site visit by Dr. Tom Hester and Dr. Michael Collins. This finding was followed in 1997 by the discovery of an extremely fragile mandible of a juvenile mammoth by the Lindsey family. These discoveries prompted the recent archaeological excavations at the site, which began in 1999 and lasted until 2002. As many archaeologists will attest, the most interesting findings came at the very end of the 2002 field season, when archaeologist Sam Gardner exposed cultural material stratigraphically below Clovis in a small test unit. This led to negotiations between Michael Collins and the Lindsey family that resulted in the purchase of the property by Dr. Collins and its donation to the Archaeological Conservancy. Between 2007-2014, Area 15 was excavated to expose the cultural materials below. With the cessation of excavations in 2014, research focuses on reporting these findings and how this early archaeological assemblage in Central Texas is redefining the search for the earliest human occupants of the Americas. The front cover of this issue of the Journal of Texas Archeology and History highlights two specific chronological periods in Texas. Firstly, in each corner you will find interactive 3D scans of four Clovis points that have been recovered from the site (Seldon et al. 2018). In between these, you will find and array of Archaic projectile points that have been recovered from the various excavations conducted between 1999-2002 and 2007-2014. This includes Early Archaic points such as the Hoxie and Martindale; Middle Archaic points including, Kinney and Nolan; and Late Archaic points including Pedernales, Marshall, and Bulverde. Clovis artifacts including, projectile points, blade cores, and diagnostic debitage have been recovered from a total of 9 excavation areas. We will expand on these covers in the future to cover specific research projects currently being undertaken by the Gault School of Archaeological Research staff. The Gault School of Archaeological Research is a non-profit, 501(C)3 charitable organization dedicated to innovative, interdisciplinary research archaeology and education focusing on the earliest peoples in the western hemisphere and their cultural antecedents. The reader is encouraged to “click” around on the various cover images comprising the front and back cover border artwork to find and explore the additional rich content hidden there. Click here to open or download an informative “Appendix to the Cover Art containing this article, descriptive attribute data and a larger image of all projectile points shown on the front and back covers.

Stone Artifacts

1949 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 152-178
Author(s):  
Alex D. Krieger
Keyword(s):  
Projectile Point ◽  
Projectile Points ◽  
Stone Artifacts ◽  
Stratigraphic Position ◽  
Point Types ◽  
Three Phases

With some exceptions, notably the projectile points, the various artifacts of stone, flint, and pigment are simple in nature and will be but briefly described. Figures 53-61 provide illustrations of nearly every descriptive grouping, specimens having been selected to show ranges of variation; the more variation —as in projectile point types—the more specimens are shown.Tables 17-18 show the stratigraphic position of all stone artifacts and pigments found. Ordinary household artifacts such as milling stones, hammerstones, hones, knives, scrapers, and gravers were but sparsely represented in the mound, as might be expected. But since the mound provides our only sure stratigraphic control, the general dearth of utilitarian artifacts in it renders their occurrence in the three phases of occupation uncertain. That is, absence from one or more of the mound phases could be due to chance where only ten or a dozen (or fewer) specimens of a particular group came from the mound.

Mapping Clovis: Projectile Points, Behavior, and Bias

2011 ◽  
Vol 76 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary M. Prasciunas
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Patterning ◽  
County Level ◽  
Archaeological Research ◽  
Projectile Point ◽  
Point Distribution ◽  
Projectile Points ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Colonization Process ◽  
Modern Population ◽  
Point Visibility

The distribution of Clovis projectile points across North America demonstrates distinct spatial patterning that has the potential to inform on many aspects of the colonization process. However, before accurate inferences regarding prehistoric behavior can be drawn from projectile point distributional databases, it is necessary to account for biases potentially affecting point visibility. Using county-level data for a sample of states from the western and southeastern U.S., this paper demonstrates that Clovis projectile point distribution is significantly related to modern population density, cultivated acreage, intensity of archaeological research, and measures of environmental productivity. Interpreting Clovis projectile point distribution is therefore more complex than frequently assumed.

Renewed investigations at the Folsom Palaeoindian type site

Antiquity ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 74 (283) ◽  
pp. 35-36
Author(s):  
David J. Meltzer
Keyword(s):  
New Mexico ◽  
Natural History ◽  
New World ◽  
Projectile Point ◽  
Projectile Points ◽  
Type Site ◽  
Bison Antiquus ◽  
Museum Display

The Folsom site (New Mexico, USA) is justly famous as the place where in 1927 four decades of sometimes bitter controversy came to an end, when it was finally demonstrated humans had been in the New World since the Pleistocene (Meltzer 1993). Folsom became the type site for the Palaeoindian period and distinctive fluted projectile point that bears its name (see Hofman 1999). Yet, as the excavations done in the 1920s by the Colorado (now Denver) and American Museums of Natural History focused initially on the recovery of Bison antiquus skeletons suitable for museum display, and latterly on documenting the association of projectile points with those bison remains, many fundamental questions of interest about the site’s stratigraphic, environmental and archaeological context were left unanswered (and often not asked).

Mesolithic cutting arrows: functional analysis of arrows used in the hunting of large game

Antiquity ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 64 (244) ◽  
pp. 494-504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Friis-Hansen
Keyword(s):  
Functional Analysis ◽  
Or Efficiency ◽  
Projectile Points

Arrowheads and projectile points, with their elegant shapes, are the very stuff of archaeological classification. But do the classes relate usefuly, or at all, to real differences in arrowhead purpose or efficiency? Modern and Mesolithic arrowheads are studied with their killing purpose in mind

The Earliest Cultures in the Western United States

1962 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 138-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex D. Krieger
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Food Supply ◽  
Western United States ◽  
Archaeological Sites ◽  
Projectile Point ◽  
Radiocarbon Dates ◽  
Projectile Points ◽  
Chipped Stone ◽  
Point Types ◽  
Geological Position

AbstractNearly all writers on the antiquity of man in America assume that the oldest archaeological sites contain chipped-stone projectile points and therefore cannot exceed an age of some 12,000 to 15,000 years, the estimates usually given to such projectile-point types as Sandia and Clovis. Suggestions of older sites, with radiocarbon dates ranging from some 21,000 years to as much as “greater than 37,000 years,” with simpler artifacts and an absence of stone projectile points, are generally viewed with suspicion if not abhorrence.A recent paper by E. H. Sellards considers seven localities in the western United States and Baja California which, because of geological position and radiocarbon dates, are probably too old to contain stone projectile points. The writer agrees with Sellards that these localities are archaeological (except for that at Texas Street in San Diego, California), but disagrees that those in coastal locations are different from those in inland locations for “ecological” reasons such as food supply and availability of stone. The differences may be explained in that those sites on the shores of extinct lakes were never covered by overburden, whereas those which were covered by alluvium or sand are known to us now only by varying amounts of exposure by erosion or excavation (or both).

Edge Abrasion during Biface Manufacture

1973 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Payson D. Sheets
Keyword(s):  
Projectile Points ◽  
Late Horizon

AbstractNance intended to demonstrate that certain small, bifacially chipped obsidian artifacts from the California Late horizon were used for cutting purposes, and were therefore not projectile points. However, both categories of edge abrasion noted by Nance, attrition and striation, may also appear on the edges of bifacially flaked artifacts during the process of manufacture. The purpose of abrading a biface edge is to strengthen the edge preparatory to pressure or percussion flaking. Criteria to distinguish edge abrasion during manufacture from abrasion deriving from use are presented.

A Suggested Projectile-Point Classification

1937 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 197-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Joe Finkelstein
Keyword(s):  
Projectile Point ◽  
Projectile Points ◽  
Simplified Method

In the following simplified method for classifying projectile-points the use of the term arrowhead is purposely avoided. The term projectile point is used for all specimens commonly referred to as birdpoints, arrowheads, spearheads, and lance points. Relative sizes are necessarily disregarded, although unusually long or short specimens are given proper mention.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document